[racket-dev] [racket-bug] all/12601: function name inconsistency

We should admit the inconsistency of ! named procedures. 
Even I stumbled over the set!-values vs set-values! issue
last week. I don't use this enough to recall the name. 






On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Nick Shelley <nickmshelley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the only thing to be done now is add `set-values!' as an
>>> alias, but that would be inconsistent with `let*-values' and
>>> `letrec-values'.
>> 
>> Why not 'set!-id-field-id' as an alias? That seems to be consistent with all
>> the others.
> 
> The general naming convention is that imperative procedures end with
> `!', which I think is the more significant convention.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM,  <nickmshelley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *** Description:
>>>> I don't think there's much that can be done now, but I just wanted to
>>>> point out that set! function names are inconsistent. When a struct is
>>>> mutable, you get set-id-field-id! functions, but setting multiple values is
>>>> called set!-values.
>>> 
>>> I think the only thing to be done now is add `set-values!' as an
>>> alias, but that would be inconsistent with `let*-values' and
>>> `letrec-values'.
>>> --
>>> sam th
>>> samth at ccs.neu.edu
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu